Homelessness, Human Dignity and Charter Rights: What Heegsma v. Hamilton Means for Ontario

A significant ruling on the rights of people experiencing homelessness

Can a municipality prohibit people from sleeping in public parks or erecting tents when they have nowhere else to go? And when people experiencing homelessness challenge those restrictions, can a court dismiss their evidence based on assumptions about mental illness or addiction?

In Heegsma v. Hamilton (City), 2026 ONCA 726 (CanLII), the Ontario Court of Appeal has made an important statement about how courts must approach these questions.

On October 9, 2026, the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal brought by 14 people who were or had been unhoused in Hamilton. The Court identified serious errors in the lower court's treatment of the evidence and its analysis of the Canadian Charter of Rights and

Freedoms. It ordered a fresh hearing before a different judge.

The ruling is significant for people experiencing homelessness, advocates for housing rights, municipalities, and anyone concerned about the protection of constitutional rights in Ontario.

Importantly, the Court of Appeal did not finally decide that Hamilton's by-law or its enforcement practices violated the Charter. Instead, it determined that the original decision could not stand and that the constitutional challenge had to be reconsidered properly.

What happened in Heegsma v. Hamilton?

Hamilton's Parks By-law prohibited people from staying overnight in public parks and erecting tents or other structures there.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the City adopted an encampment protocol that permitted tents in certain circumstances, subject to restrictions. The City subsequently withdrew that protocol, and its restrictions on overnight stays and tents became central to the dispute.

Fourteen individuals who had lived in Hamilton encampments challenged the City's by-law and its enforcement practices. They alleged that the City's actions, including the removal of people from encampments between August 2021 and August 2023, infringed their rights under sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.

The applicants argued that the restrictions and evictions affected people who had no realistic access to permanent housing or shelter. Their circumstances exposed them to serious risks, including violence, health concerns and a lack of privacy.

In December 2024, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed their application in Heegsma v. Hamilton (City), 2024 ONSC 7154 (CanLII).

The applicants appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal concluded that the application judge had made a series of errors requiring a new hearing.

Mental illness and addiction must not become stereotypes that discredit evidence

One of the most important aspects of the appeal concerned the credibility of the applicants' evidence about alleged overnight evictions.

The application judge found that the evidence did not establish overnight evictions as alleged. In reaching that conclusion, the judge relied on generalizations concerning people with mental health conditions and addiction issues rather than properly analyzing the evidence of the individual applicants.

The Court of Appeal found this approach legally erroneous.

A person's mental health condition or experience with addiction does not automatically make their evidence unreliable. Nor can a court fairly assess the credibility of several individuals as a group simply because they share a particular characteristic or experience.

Credibility assessments must be grounded in the actual evidence and the circumstances of the individual witness. Where evidence conflicts, the court must examine the relevant inconsistencies and explain its conclusions rather than substitute assumptions for analysis.

This principle extends beyond homelessness litigation. People experiencing mental illness, addiction, poverty or other forms of marginalization must not have their evidence discounted on the basis of stereotypes.

The central lesson is that evidence must be assessed on its merits, not through assumptions about the person giving it.

Section 7 of the Charter requires a meaningful constitutional analysis

Section 7 of the Charter protects everyone's right to life, liberty and security of the person, subject to the principles of fundamental justice.

In the context of homelessness and encampment enforcement, the legal questions can be complex. Restrictions on where people may sleep can have serious consequences when shelter or adequate housing is unavailable.

However, the existence of hardship does not automatically establish a section 7 violation.

A court must apply the governing constitutional principles to the evidence and the specific government action being challenged.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge's analysis was insufficient. The reasons did not adequately engage with the legal tests required to determine the section 7 claim.

That matters because constitutional rights cannot be meaningfully protected if a court merely acknowledges a problem and then reaches a conclusion without explaining how the governing legal principles apply.

A proper analysis must address the nature of the state action, the evidence of its effects, the applicable principles of fundamental justice and the arguments advanced by the parties.

The new hearing will provide an opportunity for those questions to be considered afresh.

Equality rights under section 15 cannot be treated as an afterthought

Section 15 of the Charter guarantees equality before and under the law and equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination on the grounds identified in the provision.

The appellants argued that Hamilton's restrictions and enforcement practices discriminated against them, including on grounds related to sex, race and disability, and the intersection of race and sex.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge's section 15 analysis was inadequate. The reasons devoted little attention to the equality claim and did not provide the depth of analysis required for an issue of this significance.

This is an important reminder that equality rights deserve a substantive examination, not a brief dismissal after other issues have been considered.

The effects of a government policy may differ substantially depending on a person's circumstances. Women and gender-diverse people experiencing homelessness, for example, may face particular risks of violence and other barriers to safety. People with disabilities may face additional obstacles when attempting to access shelters or other services.

An equality analysis must seriously engage with the evidence and the alleged discriminatory effects of the challenged measures. It must not assume that a rule affecting everyone in the same formal way necessarily affects everyone equally in practice.

The Court of Appeal did not determine that discrimination had been established. It held that the lower court's analysis was inadequate to resolve the claim.

Public documents still require proper evidentiary analysis

The Court of Appeal also addressed the treatment of documents the appellants sought to introduce as evidence.

The application judge had excluded documents without conducting the necessary analysis of whether they could be admitted under the public documents exception to the hearsay rule.

This aspect of the decision is a reminder that evidence cannot simply be excluded without considering the applicable legal rules.

The fact that a document is publicly available does not automatically make every statement within it admissible for every purpose. Courts must consider the nature of the document, the purpose for which it is offered and the applicable evidentiary principles.

At the same time, a court must properly assess a recognized exception to the hearsay rule where a party relies on it.

This is especially important in complex public-interest litigation, where government records and other documentary evidence may be relevant to the history, implementation and effects of a challenged policy.

What does the decision mean for municipalities?

Municipalities have legitimate responsibilities to manage public spaces, maintain public safety and administer their by-laws. Heegsma does not eliminate those responsibilities or establish that all restrictions on encampments are unconstitutional.

But municipal authority must be exercised within the limits imposed by the Constitution.

Where government action is challenged under the Charter, the court must carefully examine the evidence, apply the correct legal tests and give reasons that explain the outcome. Policies intended to manage public spaces cannot be insulated from constitutional scrutiny simply because they involve difficult questions of public administration.

The ruling also underscores the importance of understanding the real-world circumstances of people affected by municipal decisions. The availability of shelter, the risks associated with displacement and the effects on vulnerable groups may all be relevant to the issues a court must determine.

A fresh hearing does not predetermine the result. It ensures that the legal questions will be considered through a process that properly addresses the evidence and the applicable law.

Does Heegsma mean that encampment evictions are now illegal?

No. This distinction is essential.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new hearing before a different judge. It did not issue a final ruling that Hamilton's Parks By-law was unconstitutional, that every eviction challenged by the appellants violated the Charter, or that the appellants were entitled to damages.

Those issues remain to be determined through the fresh hearing.

Nevertheless, the decision has practical significance. It reinforces that courts must not rely on stereotypes when assessing evidence, must properly consider the admissibility of documents and must rigorously apply the Charter's constitutional and equality-rights frameworks.

For people experiencing homelessness and those advocating for their rights, the ruling means that the constitutional challenge will receive another hearing after the Court of Appeal identified serious errors in the original decision.

Conclusion: The rule of law must protect everyone

Homelessness presents difficult social, economic and public-policy challenges. Municipalities must manage public spaces, while governments at every level face questions about housing affordability, shelter capacity and the needs of vulnerable residents.

But these challenges do not make constitutional rights less important.

The significance of Heegsma v. Hamilton lies not in a final declaration that the City's actions were unconstitutional, but in the Court of Appeal's insistence that serious constitutional claims must be decided through fair evidentiary assessments and meaningful legal analysis.

People experiencing homelessness do not lose their dignity, their credibility or their constitutional protections because they lack a permanent address.

The law requires more than assumptions about people living in difficult circumstances. It requires evidence, principled reasoning and a genuine examination of their rights.

At Apuntar Legal Services Professional Corporation, we believe that access to justice means ensuring that legal rights are taken seriously, particularly when the people asserting them are among society's most vulnerable.

The rule of law is measured not only by how it protects the powerful, but also by whether it gives the most marginalized a fair opportunity to be heard.

Case references and further reading

• Heegsma v. Hamilton (City), 2026 ONCA 726 (CanLII) — Ontario Court of Appeal decision.

• Heegsma v. Hamilton (City), 2024 ONSC 7154 (CanLII) — original decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

• Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sections 7, 15 and 24(1).

Legal information disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The application of the Charter depends on the specific facts and applicable law. For advice about a particular matter, consult a qualified legal professional.